<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000066" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
On Thursday 30 September 2010 08:58 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:AFEBDC84-7623-433F-8CF7-B6BBF7A94558@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 29/09/2010, at 8:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of the charter had been met. Interesting cascade.
And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing list to mess with the charter.
So we might have both letter and spirit.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Exactly. That was my reason for doing it this way. Whilst I agree that it is a question of interpretation as to whether one can interpret "voting 30 seconds ago" as having "voted in the previous election", it cannot be questioned that if you vote in the election one day before it closes, you can vote again in a charter poll that is called the following day. So - 30 seconds, or one day - what difference does it make?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Jeremy<br>
<br>
I think, the co-coordinators need to protect the letter and spirit of
the charter, in this case to understand why special conditions were
laid for a charter vote, and do their utmost to go by it, rather than
say, well, one could also have done this or that, and it would be the
same, 'what difference does it make'... I dont think taking this line
of argument, showing other 'possible' technical gaps and loopholes, is
really the right way to defend a leadership decision, which could as
easily have been taken in a manner that upheld the charter.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:AFEBDC84-7623-433F-8CF7-B6BBF7A94558@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Don't forget that we are pressed for time here. Unless the charter is amended, we will be unable to legally nominate any civil society representatives for the CSTD working group on the IGF. </pre>
</blockquote>
The suggestion given to you before you embarked on the process was to
have the charter amendment vote - which is where we are pressed for
time - right away, before the co-coordinator vote. (It is a different
issue that the the very need of a charter amendment
has been questioned by many, without the needed response from the
co-cordinators.) I dont see why we are pressed for time reg the
co-coordinator vote. Last year it took place in December, I think. In
any case, nothing prevented the coordinator vote to immediately follow
the charter amendment vote. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:AFEBDC84-7623-433F-8CF7-B6BBF7A94558@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Further, the longer delay between election and charter vote, the less time the nominating committee will have to deliberate.
</pre>
</blockquote>
As I said, charter amendment vote, if necessary, could be carried out
first and nomcom process started immediately. I dont see the problem
here.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:AFEBDC84-7623-433F-8CF7-B6BBF7A94558@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Having said that, if there is a clear preference for Adam's solution, whereby I would disqualify voters from all the 2010-eligible members if they were not also 2009-eligible members, then we can proceed that way. This is technically possible, and will save us the time (and aggravation to people who have already voted) that we would otherwise waste by duplicating the poll in 10 days time.
However, my reason for avoiding doing this was that there was a shadow over the validity of the 2009 membership list, that was never completely resolved (and frankly, probably now cannot be, since the person who ran the last election was unable to find the time to do the necessary investigations - and he was always volunteering his time after all).
</pre>
</blockquote>
I have asked for this before, included on the list, and I think IGC
should get a report on what really happened vis a vis the 2009 voting
with reg. to its voting list. We need to know all that the coordinators
know, which must be significant since now we see that it has become the
basis of an important organizational decision (though taken in private)
not to use the 2009 election voters list for a purpose it is needed to
be used for a charter mandated organizational process. If Derrick
Cogburn, who conducted the polls, has some information on this he can
be persuaded to share it, but at least coordinators should share with
us the basis of their doubts about the 2009 election voters list. <br>
<br>
In any case, if, as you say, the ' shadow over the validity of the 2009
membership list' was a material issue in taking this contested decision
about the charter amendment vote, I think the list could easily have
been revalidated. But that depends on what kind and extent of shadow
there is on the voters list.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:AFEBDC84-7623-433F-8CF7-B6BBF7A94558@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
So my first preference is that we accept both the coordinator election result AND the charter vote as valid, but I have encouraged Parminder to let the Appeals Team decide if this is unacceptable to him.
My second preference is that if there are a sizable number of people for whom the first option is unacceptable, and if it this would overcome their concern and Parminder's, I will filter the results of the charter poll through last year's membership list (notwithstanding the problems with that list).
My third and least preferred option is to run the charter vote again after the coordinator ballot closes. I would need an Appeals Team decision on this before proceeding, because of the delay it would cause to our selection of the CSTD panel.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>